Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 863 (MP)

Kesarimal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2003-07-18

DEEPAK VERMA, S.K.SETH

body2003
Judgment Deepak Verma, S.K.Seth, JJ. ( 1 ) Mrs. Niti Kakani, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. None for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, though served. With consent arguments heard on merits. ( 2 ) For the personal injury sustained by the appellant on a road accident which took place on 25.10.2000, the Tribunal has awarded only a paltry sum of Rs. 92,000 in Claim Case No. 8 of 2001 decided on 30.9.2002. ( 3 ) The appellant, who was doing the business of sale of readymade garments, claims that he was earning Rs. 4,000 per month. On account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. IQU 5106 by respondent No. 3 the appellant sustained grievous injuries on the various parts of the body. The appellant was hospitalised and remained in the M.Y. Hospital nearly for a month. The right leg above knee joint has been amputated and all fingers, including thumb of the right hand have also been amputated. The doctor PW 3 was examined to prove the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the appellant. ( 4 ) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of compensation which cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, termed as just and proper compensation as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 5 ) On the other hand, Mr. Dandwate, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that looking to the age of the appellant the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income and the amount of general damages, which does not call for any interference. ( 6 ) Before us it is not disputed that respondent No. 3 was responsible for causing the accident and that the offending vehicle at the time of the accident was insured with respondent No. 1, which belonged to respondent No. 2. Thus, the liability to pay compensation to the appellant is that of all the respondents joint and several. ( 7 ) Not only we have perused the record, but on the last date of hearing we had the occasion to see the appellant when he was brought to the court room with the help of two persons. ( 8 ) From the evidence of the appellant it is clear that he had sustained grievous injuries. ( 7 ) Not only we have perused the record, but on the last date of hearing we had the occasion to see the appellant when he was brought to the court room with the help of two persons. ( 8 ) From the evidence of the appellant it is clear that he had sustained grievous injuries. This is duly supported by the expert evidence of Dr. Surendra (PW 3) who had issued the disability certificate Exh. P-83, wherein he has opined that the total cumulative permanent physical impairment is 100 per cent. In his deposition PW 3 has stated that there cannot be disability beyond 100 per cent, therefore, he has given the certificate looking to the nature and extent of injury sustained by the appellant especially the amputation of the right leg and amputation of right hand fingers and thumb. As stated earlier we had occasion to see the appellant who was brought to court room with the help of two persons. Thus, it is clear beyond any doubt that the appellant on his own cannot perform any work, including his daily routine performance. Throughout his remaining life he will need the help of an assistant. Even otherwise his life has been rendered miserable and he has been forced to lead a vegetable life without any physical activity. ( 9 ) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the income of the deceased was Rs. 4,000 per month. In our considered opinion and looking to the nature of business which the appellant was doing from a handcart near the bus stand, the monthly income of the appellant could be assessed at Rs. 3,000. Thus the annual income of the appellant would come to Rs. 36,000. In the claim petition the appellant has stated that his age is 50 years whereas in some of the medical papers it is mentioned as 60 or 62 years. At the time of his deposition his age has been recorded as 52 years. Thus looking to the variation of age we take that the age of the appellant must be around 55 years. Looking to the age of the appellant at the time of the accident, in our considered opinion, a multiplier of 10 would be appropriate. Thus, the appellant is entitled to recover Rs. 3,60,000 as damages from the respondents jointly and severally. Looking to the age of the appellant at the time of the accident, in our considered opinion, a multiplier of 10 would be appropriate. Thus, the appellant is entitled to recover Rs. 3,60,000 as damages from the respondents jointly and severally. ( 10 ) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even today the appellant is in pain and agony and any slight physical exertion aggravates the pain. He is still undergoing medical treatment. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he should be given suitable amount for pain, suffering, medical treatment, special diet, etc. In our considered opinion a sum of Rs. 90,000 would be sufficient on these heads including past and future medical expenses. Thus, the appellant is entitled to recover from the respondents jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 4,50,000. The difference in amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of application till it is actually paid. ( 11 ) Out of the total amount awarded to the appellant to safeguard his interest as well as to take care of future expenses we direct an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 would be kept in a maximum interest fetching FDR of a nationalised bank and the appellant shall be entitled to receive the half yearly interest thereof. ( 12 ) Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. The respondent No. 1 shall bear the cost throughout. The counsels fee Rs. 1,000, if certified.